Alabama gun bills being debated as session ebbs

Wednesday

May 8, 2013 at 12:01 AM

MONTGOMERY | With their annual session nearing its end, Alabama lawmakers have yet to settle on changes to the state’s gun laws, even as leaders of both chambers say they want to relax restrictions on gun possession.

By Bill BarrowThe Associated Press

MONTGOMERY | With their annual session nearing its end, Alabama lawmakers have yet to settle on changes to the state’s gun laws, even as leaders of both chambers say they want to relax restrictions on gun possession. The primary gun measure began as a push to allow employees to have weapons in their cars while at work and has blossomed into a lengthy bill with numerous provisions. But the House and Senate have yet to agree on a final plan, and Senate Bill 286 appears headed for a compromise committee of lawmakers from each chamber. The sponsor, Sen. Scott Beason, R-Gardendale, said he’s concerned that the House version doesn’t do enough to protect gun owners’ rights. House Speaker Mike Hubbard said he’s worried that further tinkering with the House’s preferred bill will force law enforcement authorities to abandon the measure. Differences remain over the circumstances under which an employee can keep a gun in his car at a place of employment and when a citizen can carry a weapon in public. For example, the House wants to require that any employee with a long-barrel gun at work also have a hunting license. The Senate version doesn’t. Beason said many of the changes he wants to the House version are “technical,” but he declined to elaborate. The chambers appear to have agreed to exempt businesses from civil liability related to the use of an employee’s gun — a key win for business lobbyists. Lawmakers say they’ve also agreed to require that sheriffs issue a reason for denying a concealed weapons permit and allow appeals of any denial. Sheriffs now have latitude to deny permit requests. And both chambers’ leaders say they want to relax restrictions on citizens’ carrying weapons openly in Alabama and carrying weapons in their vehicles. “I just don’t want Alabama to be the least-friendly gun state in the South,” Beason said, attributing the distinction to NRA’s analysis of state carrying laws. Beason said he would prefer Alabama be as close to an unrestricted open carry state as possible. And he criticized fellow Republicans he described as “pro-gun — except they don’t want you to carry one.”Hubbard said the House GOP caucus is determined to expand Second Amendment rights. But the details have proven to be a tricky balancing act, with lawmakers certain to flout powerful interests no matter the outcome. The National Rifle Association has blessed both versions and promised to make final votes part of their “scorecards” on legislators. The NRA can hold notable sway in GOP primaries. But the Business Council of Alabama — which typically backs conservative candidates — opposes both versions. BCA President William Canary said he’s pleased with the legal immunity. But he said his organization won’t support anything that doesn’t let a business set its own policy for employee weapons. Like Beason, he cites the Constitution for his position, referring to private property rights afforded by the Fifth Amendment. The two chambers must approve the same version of any bill before their final adjournment, expected on May 20. They have just two working days before then. Two other gun bills linger, as well, though supporters and opponents alike concede both are mostly symbolic. A proposed constitutional amendment would apply a judicial standard called strict scrutiny to any limits on possessing weapons. The idea cleared a Senate committee Tuesday. It must pass the full Senate before it goes on a statewide ballot. Strict scrutiny is a legal term that refers to courts setting the highest standards when deciding whether a law is constitutional. In the case of firearms, that means any restrictions would have to be narrowly tailored and proponents would have to show a compelling reason for the limits. The bill has no practical consequence because it simply repeats what the U.S. Supreme Court already requires under recent decisions striking down local weapons bans. The second symbolic measure attempts to override any federal limitations on the right to bear arms. Rep. Randy Davis, whose committee would handle the bill, said he wasn’t sure Tuesday whether he would be able to schedule a meeting before the end of the session. The Senate approved the bill last week. Some supporters say the measure is needed to protect gun owners’ rights, but other lawmakers — including a few who voted for the bill — say that the concept of nullification is legally dubious given the U.S. Constitution’s Supremacy Clause that places federal authority over the states.

Never miss a story

Choose the plan that's right for you.
Digital access or digital and print delivery.